Matthew O'Toole
South Belfast · Social Democratic and Labour Party · Northern Ireland
“I appreciate my colleague's giving way. Unfortunately, I was not here for all of the Minister's remarks — like her, I have been in the Chamber for a lot of today, so I had to pop out and attend to some other business. I presume that the Member will agree that these provisions could be more properly included in the Sentencing Bill.”
“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”
“We learned about the antics of Jeffrey Donaldson that were not criminal — so far — only after his conviction. Reporters have been able to go and find that information and people have been able to speak — felt able to speak — because Mr Donaldson has been sent to prison, convicted of appalling crimes, and is therefore less likely to seek r…”
“We are pleased, in broad terms, to support it at Second Stage. We welcome the move towards an approach to fisheries management that is ecosystem-based rather than narrowly species-based.”
“We were robust in opposing those who were not willing to deal with the nutrients action plan, for example, which should have been a core part of dealing with Lough Neagh. Of course, the farming industry needed to be engaged, and the Minister has been doing a lot of that work recently.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In just a few hours' time, the House will go into recess for more than two months. There are two outstanding and grave matters that the public in Northern Ireland want us to deal with, but we are walking away, so I want your advice on Standing Orders.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,909 lines we hold for Matthew O'Toole, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 70 of 119.
“It is one of those reforms that should have been made anyway but which the pandemic made urgent. It is, however, important that it be given permanent and separate legislative provision. It is clearly not an ideal situation that we are prolonging various bits of bureaucratic practice under the aegis of the Coronavirus Act, and it was the right thing, in my view, that we did not renew the overarching structures of the Coronavirus Act when they came before us a number of weeks ago. I know that the registrar is here today, and I hope that we can move swiftly towards having a more permanent alternative legislative basis for this, because it is a very important and humane reform that allows people in extreme circumstances, experiencing profound grief, to avail themselves of the processes without having to do it in person.”
“The Committee has requested further information on the position in England and Wales, where powers have been introduced to enable the electronic transfer of documents between the various parties. However, they were unable to introduce powers to enable remote registration and had to revert to registration in person in March 2022. Members will consider this information when it is received from the Department. The Committee for Finance, on the basis of the remarks that I have made, supports this motion. <BR /> <BR />I will now make some brief remarks in a political capacity. Our party and, I hope, all other parties in the Chamber will support this extension. It is a sensible and humane bureaucratic change that came in under the aegis and the urgent circumstances of the pandemic a number of years ago.”
“To be clear, I should say that the reason why no further extension would be necessary is that we would have an alternative and more permanent legislative footing for this measure. The Examiner of Statutory Rules published her report on the rule and did not draw any matters to the Committee's attention. Therefore, at the Committee meeting on 10 April 2024, members recommended that the statutory rule be approved by the Assembly. At the Finance Committee meeting on 17 April, members considered policy proposals to amend relevant primary legislation that will enable both telephone and electronic registration of deaths or stillbirths and electronic transmission of this documentation in these circumstances.”
“The Committee, at its meeting on 13 March, received an oral briefing from departmental officials on the provisions of this rule. At that meeting, the officials assured the Committee that work was being undertaken by the Department to advance separate legislation to make the temporary arrangements permanent. At the Committee's meeting on 20 March, members agreed that they were content, in principle, with a proposed statutory rule to extend the expiry date of the temporary provisions in the Coronavirus Act 2020 in relation to death and stillbirth registration until 24 September 2024. <BR /> <BR />The agreement of members, however, was on the basis that no further extension would be necessary. Their agreement was also subject to the report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules.”
“First, I will speak on the Finance Committee's scrutiny of the statutory rule. I thank the Minister for her comments. <BR /> <BR />Since the resumption of Assembly business, the Finance Committee has considered a range of extensions to temporary provisions in the Coronavirus Act 2020 in relation to death and stillbirth registration. Those provisions allowed for temporary changes to civil registration legislation in order to ensure that the registration of deaths and stillbirths could proceed in a pandemic by allowing for electronic transfer of documents and registration. <BR /> <BR />Committee members have stressed to the Department that the provisions should be brought forward on a permanent basis via an alternative legislative vehicle.”
“They need to be followed up with specific plans that have legislative force and financial wherewithal. We, as a constructive Opposition, will always say that we recognise that Executive parties have difficult decisions to make and have to prioritise. However, this has to be a priority, because it is drowning ordinary working families with costs that they cannot afford and it is damaging our economy. <BR /> <BR />Following Saturday's march, we, as a constructive Opposition, will keep the pressure on for a properly funded programme of childcare reform that eases the burden on working families and allows them to raise their children, contribute to the economy and live without that huge and growing burden of stress.”
“Unlike in England and Wales, where 30 hours of free childcare a week is provided, here, for four-year-olds, there is the equivalent of two and a half hours a day, which, in many cases, does not reduce childcare bills at all because of the timings that providers use. It is important to say that many providers are serious about this. The childcare workforce in Northern Ireland is extraordinary. They do an extraordinary job looking after our children. They are skilled professionals who deserve to be paid. <BR /> <BR />For the sake of our economy and the sake of working families, we need to get serious now about delivering an updated childcare strategy in Northern Ireland. The Executive parties said that they would make that a day 1 priority. Those words and, indeed, my words now are just that: words.”
“They put on their signs how much childcare is costing them. In many cases, it is costing people on average incomes, sometimes lower than average incomes, thousands upon thousands of pounds per month. It is simply unbearable.”
“<BR /> <BR />On Saturday, we saw working families, many of whom had probably never been on a political march in their life, going along — thankfully, it was a sunny day — and many of them brought their children.”
“Saturday was a beautiful, sunny day in Belfast, and it was a day of activism for many families, particularly young families, who are struggling with the unbearable costs of childcare in Northern Ireland. As we in the Chamber know, because we have talked about and debated it several times, Northern Ireland is far behind neighbouring jurisdictions in providing support for working parents with the now crippling cost of childcare. <BR /> <BR />Saturday's march was organised by Melted Parents NI, a group that probably all of us in the Chamber have now been in touch with. I pay a particular tribute to Melted Parents, which did an incredible job of organising not just Saturday's march but a whole programme of activism, policy engagement and outreach to put this right at the top of the agenda for the incoming Assembly and Executive.”
“I thank my Finance Committee colleague for giving way. Does he accept that there are multiple ways in which a price cap can be implemented? A particular model operates in Britain. In our manifesto, we suggest that, when energy company prices become too high, a cap be created by effectively imposing a kind of profits tax. There are, I am sure, other models in other parts of the world. Are those not exactly the kinds of options that a task force could examine and report back on to the Communities Minister or, indeed, the Economy Minister?”
“Minister, I am hugely excited about Grand Central. I welcome its development and pay tribute to the work of the previous Minister, Nichola Mallon, as well as to you, for delivering it. Given that we hope to have the Euros at a newly built Casement Park in a few years' time, are you looking at having additional capacity to serve the Euros and at putting on extra services from Grand Central to Balmoral and Finaghy to allow passengers to alight there and go to the matches?”
“Anyone in the Chamber who is saying or implying that the amendment creates a better start larger families payment or in any way obliges the Minister to introduce it is, I am afraid, codding people on. It is very lukewarm, to use a phrase.”
“I will be brief. Will the Member acknowledge that your amendment — the Alliance Party should be clear about this — does not call on the Minister to introduce a better start larger families payment? It asks that the Assembly:”
“The Minister mentioned our text. It asks him to bring a plan to remove the two-child limit before the end of 2024. The Minister's party colleague said that that was unaffordable. The Minister says that he will look at the panel review and bring forward a report by the end of 2024 but seems to be saying that he rules out action to remove the two-child limit. Is there not a contradiction, if the Minister is saying that he cannot afford it and that it will not happen? Why is he bringing forward a report in the first place, if he has prejudged its outcome, and why is our motion objectionable in that regard?”
“I have suggested how we could pay for this. Obviously, we hope that a future UK Government change the policy at Westminster, but I think that it is affordable here. When she talks about taking it out of the mouths of children, what does she mean exactly? How would removing it ourselves, via mitigation or directly, do that?”
“First, that is what is in the welfare mitigations review panel's report. We have explained how it would be paid for. It is important to say that we have not come forward with uncosted proposals, but I welcome the fact that the Alliance Party will support the motion.”
“The welfare mitigations review panel costed it at about £40 million a year. It then rises a bit. The Member for Strangford disagrees, but that is what is in the —.”
“I appreciate the Committee Chair's giving way. I agree with everything that he has said. That is why, in my speech, I acknowledged every point that he has just made and offered a clear costing and a potential means for it to be paid.”
“There is no more important thing to do in politics or in public life than improve the life chances of those who are in need. With the motion, which proposes something that is not only transformative but affordable and practical, we all have that opportunity. Let us take that opportunity. I commend to the Assembly the motion to remove the two-child limit.”
“I do not actually, but this quote resonates with me. Roosevelt said:”
“We would prefer abolition, but, ultimately, what matters is the financial outcome for families, not the precise bureaucratic mechanism. <BR /> <BR />Let me touch briefly on the DUP amendment, which, I am afraid, we cannot support. Like the Alliance amendment yesterday, it seeks to water down the specificity of the motion and the policy commitment that we are asking for. It simply asks that the Minister "consider the merits" of the recommendations of the Allamby mitigations panel. To be honest, I had hoped and assumed that the Minister would do that as a bare minimum without the need for Assembly instruction. I am afraid that the amendment would render our motion wholly inadequate, so we cannot support it. <BR /> <BR />I do not go in for grandiose quotes, but there is a Franklin Roosevelt quote that always resonates with me, and it is —.”
“Indeed, we may be the first party to propose a motion with a detailed explanation of how a measure could be paid for. It is ironic for an Opposition party to do that work. <BR /> <BR />Of course, the long-term cost of child poverty, be it through adult welfare, healthcare costs or, tragically, in the criminal justice system, far outweighs the cost of the intervention that we are proposing. Let me be clear on this: we regard a proposal for full mitigation of the two-child limit via a separate payment as being entirely consistent with the ask in the motion. Our preference would be for abolition, but we are not theological, so I hope that we can avoid turning the debate into a theological debate about the technicalities of mitigation versus abolition. If mitigation covered the total cost of the two-child limit, we would be up for that.”
“We also subsidise non-existent long-haul flights from Belfast by paying the Treasury more than £2 million a year in hypothetically forgone air tax, despite there not being any long-haul flights from Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Taken together, those measures could offer the means to pay for an essential intervention in our welfare system, end the pernicious two-child limit and start lifting children out of poverty. Of course, if Members from Executive parties wish to challenge or disagree with those suggested choices or options, they are more than welcome to tell us which choices they would be willing to make to pay for policies. As yet, we have seen precious little of that detail from the Executive parties amid more than a dozen motions promising action.”
“That is a significant recurring cost, but it is not insurmountable. Indeed, the Executive have already raised the vast majority of it — they have raised £30 million — via an increase in the regional rate. That funding could be directed towards paying for removing the two-child limit. There are other options that the Executive could look at, such as reforming the long-term generosity of the vacant property relief in the rates system. It is, of course, entirely right that we have a relief for vacant property, but our relief is particularly generous when compared with that across the water or over the border. Those are not definitive decisions, because they are not ours to make, but they are an example of what the Executive could look at to pay for the policy.”
“While poverty, including child poverty, is multifaceted and touches on virtually every aspect of public policy, there are clear and deliverable interventions that we have the power to implement, which would make a real difference to people's lives. If we were to undo the effects of the two-child limit via policy, we would make the lives of many children and families better, raise many out of poverty and improve their life chances. That is hardly a bad use of the power that we have. We think that it would be a good day's work. <BR /> <BR />How much would it cost, and how would or should it be paid for? The Department's welfare mitigations panel consulted two different economic consultancies that costed ending the two-child limit in Northern Ireland at about £40 million a year.”
“The review of welfare mitigations — created by the previous Communities Minister Deirdre Hargey and led by Les Allamby — found that virtually all the local stakeholders and campaigners that it engaged with highlighted the two-child limit as being a particular blight. <BR /> <BR />Listening to the debate yesterday, and the various arguments that were made for watering down the SDLP's call for specific timelines and a rigorous ring-fenced budget for child poverty, one could have been left with the impression that the making of an anti-poverty strategy was as mysterious as the third secret of Fatima or as impenetrable as the text of 'Finnegans Wake'. It was as if there was nothing we could do.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is also important to note that the policy affects working families too. The majority of households affected by the two-child limit are working families. The scale of the real loss to families is huge: a lower-income family in receipt of the child element of universal credit loses £3,200 per year for every third or subsequent child born after April 2017. The numbers of affected children is increasing year-on-year, making the effect of the policy evermore damaging. Of course, as the Resolution Foundation has pointed out, that is precisely the point of the policy. <BR /> <BR />A wide range of experts who have looked at this issue agree that the removal of the two-child limit from universal credit would be a hugely impactful and direct way of addressing child poverty.”
“Therefore, the first item in our Opposition day package is a call on the Executive to remove the pernicious two-child limit on universal credit. That policy, introduced by the Tories in 2015, is an indefensible and direct punishment of children. <BR /> <BR />Our former leader John Hume often talked about the accident of birth in relation to identity. Of course, that accident of birth also applies to the family that a child is born into and, indeed, the order of their birth, but the effect of the two-child limit is to remove any additional support from that child if they are the third or subsequent birth, regardless of the objective need of the family. Of course, in Northern Ireland, the impact is disproportionately felt because of our larger family sizes.”
“As always, my colleague puts his case forcefully. There is an argument to be made there. However, we have a choice. Although we will make political points, I want to build some consensus on this issue in the Chamber. I also recognise that we are making the Communities Minister sit in the Chamber for an awful lot of today, as we did yesterday. I hope that we can make some progress in the debate. As I said, we have a choice. <BR /> <BR />Despite the political difficulties involved in getting there, Northern Ireland introduced a package of welfare mitigations that has, most experts acknowledge, mitigated some of the worst of austerity, though sadly not all of it. We have a clear template for how, when we turn up, do our jobs and make serious choices, we can improve the lives of people we serve.”
“<BR /> <BR />I note with some regret that although the Opposition is the smallest of the five main parties represented in the Chamber, we still have more MLAs in the Chamber now than the two main parties combined, which have nearly 60 MLAs between them. They may not want to give the Opposition day much credence but it would do them some credit if they gave the issue of poverty a little more respect instead of having such a paltry turnout.”
“However, while successive Tory Governments and their austerity agenda have squeezed welfare spending, without regard for the human consequences of doing so, it is wrong to imply, as some in the Chamber have done, that little can be done to alleviate or mitigate the pernicious effects of those policies. <BR /> <BR />Indeed, different parties in the Chamber have, at some points, wanted to give the Tories even more power to inflict harmful policies on the North, either by allowing them the power to legislate for welfare reform directly in Northern Ireland, allowing local hands to be washed clean of responsibility, or by boycotting ministerial office, as both main parties have done, so that the only people to take decisions for this region were those same Tory Ministers.”
“Poverty levels in this society remain far too high, unconscionably so. That is most acutely the case with child poverty. A Northern Ireland Audit Office report recently found that one in five children in our society lives in poverty. Those statistics mask the reality of empty tummies and anxious children and parents. This is not solely a local phenomenon. Across the UK and further afield, the effects of more than a decade of austerity have combined with a post-pandemic spike in inflation to create a perfect storm of rising costs and suppressed incomes for the most vulnerable.”
“<BR /> <BR />Before I go on, I thank the Cliff Edge Coalition, its members and, indeed, all the campaign groups that have come to Parliament Buildings today to make their voice heard in support of our Opposition day and our motions.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. When we entered opposition in February and in the weeks since, we have consistently said that we want to be a constructive Opposition. Recognising the scale and long-term nature of the challenges facing the Executive, we seek to offer constructive accountability and solutions as well as robust challenge when necessary. We also want to use our platform as an Opposition to give a voice to people who have been failed by our politics. As a party with its roots in social justice campaigning, the SDLP is determined to use our Opposition platform to address the moral shame and blight of poverty.”
“Does the Member agree with me that the reason having for the time-bound element in the motion is that the consultation can happen afterwards? There are multiple different routes for doing this, so we do not accept that a timeline should not be in the motion.”
“I agree with much of what he said. He talked about the importance of urgency, but would he agree that that is why it is important to put a specific date and timeline on the Minister's coming back, which is why our original motion contains the date of September 2024?”
“Do you believe that it is an urgent priority, and will you push for health to be at the core of an urgently produced Programme for Government?”
“Minister, the state of the health service in general, specifically the length of waiting lists, is probably the single biggest example and crystallisation of chaos in public services and the thing that most of the public in Northern Ireland want dealt with most quickly. It has to be at the core of a Programme for Government, but we heard from the First Minister and, indeed, from the deputy First Minister today that there does not seem to be any great hurry in the production of a Programme for Government.”
“Minister, to be clear, that money was not reprofiled by the UK Government. They took a ring fence off it, and the Executive made a decision to implement a cut in funding for integrated schools. On a related issue, last week, my colleague Colin McGrath asked the First Minister when we would see a Programme for Government. She said, "Hopefully by the summer, but let us not be in a hurry." Are you in a hurry to deliver a Programme for Government? When will it be delivered, and can you confirm that the now more than a dozen commitments made by Executive parties in private Members' motions will be formally implemented via a Programme for Government?”
“You mentioned the stranded approach and the fact that the NSMC's work is set out in parameters in the Good Friday Agreement. None of that is true of the East-West Council. There is no obligation, when the East-West Council meets, for Ministers to bring back any report on what was discussed or for there to be Ministers from multiple parties. Given that your party brought down the institutions in order to, as you said at the time, rebalance east-west with North/South, I presume that you would support the East-West Council coming under the same rules and constraints as the North/South Ministerial Council?”
“We acknowledge that all parties in the Chamber are broadly committed to the work of alleviating poverty, but we say that now is the time for the new Executive to put their mind to properly dealing with the issues and to implementing the recommendations not only of campaign groups but of some of the report of the independent panel on welfare mitigations to the previous Communities Minister. Indeed, the panel was at work when you had your spell as Communities Minister, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. It is time to get on with it and deliver for the most vulnerable in our society and for working families. <BR /> <BR />In proposing today's motion, and the other motions tomorrow, we commend the motions to the Assembly, and we ask that we all get serious and show a commitment to alleviating poverty.”
“A large part of that ring-fenced budget will go on what I discussed earlier: the removal via mitigation of the disastrous two-child cap on universal credit. We will wait to hear the arguments for the amendment, but we are relatively sceptical of it, not because we think that it has been cynically tabled or that it attempts to negate our motion; rather, it removes some of the force of our motion, particularly on timelines and specificity of budgets. <BR /> <BR />In the course of the next day, we will have lots of opportunities to debate poverty. We think that, 25 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, it is unacceptable that our poverty levels, especially our child poverty levels, remain as stubbornly high as they are. We think that we can do better.”
“However, we challenge the amendment — I say this in a constructive and mature way — in that it appears to remove two things, the first of which is the commitment that the Communities Minister report to the Assembly by September this year. We do not think that that is an unreasonable timeline. We think that, as an Opposition, part of our job is to ask not just for aspirations but for targets, timelines and dates, so we do not support the removal of that date. Secondly, the amendment removes the requirement of a specific, ring-fenced budget for child poverty alleviation. It is important, given our experience of what happens to budgets in some other areas when ring fences are removed, that there be a specific, ring-fenced budget.”
“Specifically in relation to today's motion, our view is that there should be a binding target for child poverty reduction in this mandate. We also think that the Minister of Finance should work with the Minister for Communities and other colleagues to agree a ring-fenced budget to deliver on those targets. That is reasonable and constructive, and it is urgent. <BR /> <BR />We acknowledge that there are elements of the amendment in the name of Alliance Party Members that we agree with. In part of the amendment is the sense that a child poverty strategy needs to be part of a broader anti-poverty strategy. I do not disagree with that, and nothing in our motion contradicts or undermines that.”
“<BR /> <BR />At the heart of that plan should be binding targets — publicly available and reportable, so that the public can see how well the Executive are doing on delivery — for the reduction of child poverty by the end of the mandate. We are asking not for poverty to be entirely eradicated by the end of the mandate — that would not be a reasonable or constructive suggestion — but for a measurable reduction. We propose that there should be specific interventions, the one that we think to be most important being the subject of tomorrow's motion, the removal of the two-child limit. We think that that is a practical suggestion. We acknowledge that there is a cost, but we think that it is affordable, and we have suggested ways in which we think that it could be paid for.”
“Although it is the Minister for Communities who will respond to today's debate, it is important to acknowledge that the issue is, fundamentally and inescapably, entirely cross-cutting and cross-departmental. I do not want the debate to be about me or others simply saying that the Minister for Communities is, by himself, responsible for alleviating child poverty, although his Department is, clearly, primarily responsible for the welfare interventions that we are calling for. Our position is that we need what we and campaign groups have been calling for for a number of years: an updated, public child poverty strategy to deal with the real challenges that we face.”
“The Audit Office report that I referred to also highlights how economically challenging child poverty is for Northern Ireland in the long term. It is not only an immediate moral challenge but it creates longer-term costs for other public services. We know that it imposes greater costs on the education service, the health service and sometimes, tragically, further down the line, the criminal justice system and social services. We do not believe that we can be relaxed about that situation or leave it to sit as it is, so our motion calls for a binding target to reduce child poverty by the end of the mandate, and we ask the Minister for Communities to come forward with a plan for how he proposes to deliver that reduction. <BR /> <BR />I acknowledge that that plan will need to be cross-cutting and cross-departmental.”
“Clearly, they are different statistical measures. One relates to the level of average household income. There is a difference. I am not going to spend all my remaining minutes explaining that, although I am sure I would like to get into a policy-wonkish debate about it, but there is a difference. People who are in absolute poverty are in a more desperate situation than people who are living in relative poverty. However, that does not mean that we should not have rigorous and robust policy interventions to address relative poverty. All the indications are that those who are living in relative poverty are more likely to fall into absolute poverty and, indeed, are more likely to avail themselves of other services and cost the taxpayer more down the line.”
“First, it expresses "profound regret" at the recent Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) report, which was published a number of weeks ago, that is full of "shocking" findings on the stubbornly high levels of child poverty in our society. That report was an indictment, in a sense, of all of us. It shows that not only have we failed to properly address child poverty but, in many ways, we have allowed the problem to grow worse. As I said, one in five children in the North is living in relative poverty, and nearly one in 10 is in absolute poverty.”